Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I'm not sure that my title is really appropriate but I wanted to write this because it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding of Aikido and how it is supposed to work as a martial art.

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

This is good because Aikido is not meant to start fights but respond to situations. Sure it needs to have energy but it doesn't need to start with tori being aggressive.

However, it does leave those of us who haven't learnt any ju jitsu in a position of not understanding how a grappling art works.

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.

Now in Aikido we don't go to ground so where does that leave us?

Well to me we can enter whether or not the opponent has thrown a punch simply by virtue of the fact that they have hands up in a guard. Cut outside the guard, take the arm and execute a technique. I know it's not a really easy thing to do and it obviously involves avoiding any jabs but surely this is what we are actually practicing. Once we're close, cut and execute a technique.

What is this madness? Well I was confronted by a drunk amateur boxer once (who was boasting about a ring fight to a friend which is how I know). He put in a surprise right cross which I managed to roll my head with (lost my glasses though), cut to his left as he followed up with that arm, took his arm, threw him into the road and ran for it. Situation resolved. Also very happy with my reflex that day frankly!!

It's a grappling art and if someone has their hands up ready to punch they are giving you their arm so close for it.

And no it's not that easy for them to get off a devastating punch if you enter well. Bjj has shown how easy it is to close on a puncher/kicker and if the technique is executed well why wouldn't it work?

Anyway, I know it's a rather cheeky 1st post but that's my rant for the day on what I think Aikido is teaching and that we often forget it's a grappling art based on ju jitsu :-)

I'm not sure that my title is really appropriate but I wanted to write this because it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding of Aikido and how it is supposed to work as a martial art.

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

This is good because Aikido is not meant to start fights but respond to situations. Sure it needs to have energy but it doesn't need to start with tori being aggressive.

However, it does leave those of us who haven't learnt any ju jitsu in a position of not understanding how a grappling art works.

For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.

Now in Aikido we don't go to ground so where does that leave us?

Well to me we can enter whether or not the opponent has thrown a punch simply by virtue of the fact that they have hands up in a guard. Cut outside the guard, take the arm and execute a technique. I know it's not a really easy thing to do and it obviously involves avoiding any jabs but surely this is what we are actually practicing. Once we're close, cut and execute a technique.

What is this madness? Well I was confronted by a drunk amateur boxer once (who was boasting about a ring fight to a friend which is how I know). He put in a surprise right cross which I managed to roll my head with (lost my glasses though), cut to his left as he followed up with that arm, took his arm, threw him into the road and ran for it. Situation resolved. Also very happy with my reflex that day frankly!!

It's a grappling art and if someone has their hands up ready to punch they are giving you their arm so close for it.

And no it's not that easy for them to get off a devastating punch if you enter well. Bjj has shown how easy it is to close on a puncher/kicker and if the technique is executed well why wouldn't it work?

Anyway, I know it's a rather cheeky 1st post but that's my rant for the day on what I think Aikido is teaching and that we often forget it's a grappling art based on ju jitsu :-)

Boxing has a devastating counter to the jab. It's called slip and left hook. Put's me right on my ass.

Well once I started figuring out that aikido was more or less a methodology for training principles of martial movement specifically a way to train aiki skills, and not really designed to train tactics of fighting...well I had less of the issues of looking at it as a "SU" system designed to provide answers to our contemporary environment for self defense etc.

When you start dealing with "reality" that is a whole nother matter for training that requires you to adopt a training strategy that is about reducing and mitigating and accepting risk...that is "managing" risk. You develop "fight" strategies that allow you to deal with these things.

It involves timing, predictable responses, conditioning, startle/flinch and all that good stuff.

Aikido I believe specifically deals with a very concentrated study and is concerned with a particular focus, so yeah, it is no wonder that when we attempt to translate that into a system to provide answers to hooks, cross and jabs, takedowns, and grappling that we have problems.

So, when you say "How does Aikido work" it is like maybe making the assumption that Mini Cooper would do well in F1!

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

Not necessarily true for all aikido training. If by 'we' you mean your school, than that is rather common. Almost all Shomenuchi XXXX dai ichi (more or less omote) techniques has the tori/nage/shite attacking first. The idea being that a threat is perceived and nage wants to control the attack before it begins. Think benevolent dictatorship. Maybe try playing around with this idea. If anything, it'd be something new to try. We also like to do technique on the arm uke uses to block atemi. Just some ideas to play with, if you so wish.

Also, Shioda Soke emphasizes the importance of atemi in almost every technique.
For instance, much is made of the fact that it's not actually easy to catch a good right cross, still less a good jab. However, no martial art has a devastating response to a jab or right cross (unless you're holding a sword of course) so why does anyone look for that in Aikido?

-absolutely true. Think to try and control the elbow before getting a hold of/catching the hand. The elbow moves much slower, and one can stop the attack before it gains dangerous momentum. We actually practiced jabs and one-two combos a week or so ago. It was a really fun class. If you teacher 'takes requests' for techniques, ask if you can play around with some of these ideas. I'd say 80% of the people in my school cross train (we teach several martial arts at our school), so its fun to see how each martial art relates to each other and how we can make goshinjitsu out of them.
cheers
~Adam

Firstly, we train in a very passive way - uke does something and tori reacts, executing a technique.

Not necessarily true for all aikido training. If by 'we' you mean your school, than that is rather common. Almost all Shomenuchi XXXX dai ichi (more or less omote) techniques has the tori/nage/shite attacking first. The idea being that a threat is perceived and nage wants to control the attack before it begins. Think benevolent dictatorship. Maybe try playing around with this idea. If anything, it'd be something new to try. We also like to do technique on the arm uke uses to block atemi. Just some ideas to play with, if you so wish.

Also, Shioda Soke emphasizes the importance of atemi in almost every technique.

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, this makes sense. It is the idea of opening up the opponent, creating opportunities for technique. The jab is equivalent in boxing - jab to keep the other at distance, fill the space and open up opportunities. And if it lands then hey, double benefit, but no expectation of taking someone down with it directly.

But what about other techniques? If these are all principles with infinite possibility it must be possible to enter with atemi or a grab at any time to provoke a response and opportunity, and that must lead to any technique, not just those given as examples of such a lead.

No, you're absolutely right. I was juts giving one example. Here's another...assuming your techniques are Aikikai-based you do shomenuchi iriminage by blading with your outside arm against uke outside arm, then pivot tenkan while controlling the head. Instead of letting your opposite arm go to uke's neck, let it come in front of uke's body (so its almost parallel to your arm that took care of uke's attacking arm) as you tenkan. Then, with your 'second' arm 'on top' do a backhand shuto to uke's face. Do this in a manner in which uke will notice and block. We want him or her to block. When this block to your atemi occurs, you now have both of uke's hands in your control. You've basically doubled the techniques you can do in that everything you can do from the 'blading the arm' tenkan evasion, you can now do to uke's other arm.

If uke does not block atemi, just "pat" them in the face (with as much love as possible!) until they get so annoyed they block.

Really this works the majority of the time..not just with the 'iriminage' evasion. Think one wrist grab, tenkan...as you tenkan, do a backfist (or whatever) to prompt uke to blok...now you have their other hand. Repeat, enjoy.

Well once I started figuring out that aikido was more or less a methodology for training principles of martial movement specifically a way to train aiki skills, and not really designed to train tactics of fighting...well I had less of the issues of looking at it as a "SU" system designed to provide answers to our contemporary environment for self defense etc.

When you start dealing with "reality" that is a whole nother matter for training that requires you to adopt a training strategy that is about reducing and mitigating and accepting risk...that is "managing" risk. You develop "fight" strategies that allow you to deal with these things.

It involves timing, predictable responses, conditioning, startle/flinch and all that good stuff.

Aikido I believe specifically deals with a very concentrated study and is concerned with a particular focus, so yeah, it is no wonder that when we attempt to translate that into a system to provide answers to hooks, cross and jabs, takedowns, and grappling that we have problems.

So, when you say "How does Aikido work" it is like maybe making the assumption that Mini Cooper would do well in F1!

With all due respect to my friend Kevin... My experience with Aikido is much different...

It says allot about the meme regarding most Modern Styles of Aikido is that it is no longer considered a Martial Art but some kind of poor man's Japanese Tai Chi or Yoga with a partner who rolls allot.

This is something Shoji Nishio Shihan (and some other important Shihan) warned about over 30 years ago. If Aikido is no longer an effective Martial Art then it can no longer claim it's (a) Budo. By effective I mean you can employ/use it with success against other forms of the Martial Arts...

The Goals of Aikido are different than other Martial Arts in some respects and therein lies a common bond with other styles of Aikido in that we all share a majority of them.

The application or expression of those goals in the form of an Aikido "syllabus" is where the rub is...

Our Style is much more Martial but it in my opinion it still needs to fully connect with what some call Aiki in order to be truly a Budo the way O'Sensei expressed it and Nishio Shihan felt it.

So how does Aikido "work"? I guess it depends on what kind of "work" you want it to do.

Me...I wish to express the principles of Aikido in my daily life... and.... have the ability to knock the crap out of someone if my expression of Aikido calls for it.

So how does Aikido "work"? I guess it depends on what kind of "work" you want it to do.

That is basically it.

Most people have this very general and vague idea of what a martial art is: It's some kind of empty handed fighting system of asian decent right...

Wrong.

Why is it that when I visit the archery range, no one there is ever asking how to deal with jabs, or double leg take downs. No one at the archery range thinks they can take the skills they are developing into an MMA fight, and no one asks how effective archery is on the "streets".

Archery is a martial art. Yet no one is asking the questions that Aikido seem to not stop asking. Thats because people who practice Archery know what archery is good at, and what kind of "work" they might ask it to do.

Worlds best MMA fighter, vs. Joe average Archer at 30 feet: Archery wins every time. Does that mean archery is superior to MMA in a fight, no just different.

Worlds best MMA fighter, vs. Joe average Archer at 30 feet: Archery wins every time. Does that mean archery is superior to MMA in a fight.

Hell yes it does Chris. The superior one is the one left standing.

Joking aside though, you raise an important point regarding knowledge of the nature of the weapon being used and its ideal tactical applications. I think this is something that is often misunderstood in the Aikido world, i.e. what is the nature of Aiki as a weapon (if there is one) and what are the ideal range and tactical conditions for applying that weapon?

Imho good Aiki is applied in a similar way to the archer - at a distance and in conditions where the tactics of the attacker are compromised well in advance of any direct physical contact.

I think what when we look at it this way we are combining two things: The physical and the conceptual.

Weapons to me are tangible and physical, not conceptual. Semantics? maybe some...

So...aikido as a weapon does not work for me as aikido is conceptual application.

A weapon is tangible, hand, knife, stick, gun....

those weapons as Chris points out have properties and characteristics that give them various tactical advantages/disadvantages.

Where does Aikido come into play as conceptual?

Well it is the strategy or tactics of employing that weapon system (or could be).

I think though that this is also not correct because typically, I say TYPICALLY, aikido is NOT generally taught with such a narrow focus such as tactical employment of a weapon system, but as an overall DO or WAY that is more concerned with over-arching principles rather than tactical employment of a weapon system.

Sure, there are linkages, but what a VERY ineffcient way to learn how to use a weapon system!

I really have found it useful and important to distingush between the two methods of approach...that is...tactics vice "WAY" "DO" or "ART".

Sure, we can take an intergrated approach to study and it is helpful to understand etiology. Heck Ellis just wrote a very wonderful book on this process!

However, I think a big part of the problem is alot of folks confuse the processes, methodolgies and it becomes convoluted for them and then they experience dissonance when their buddy at work says "show me how this works"...and then we are trying to apply a limited, conceptual solution to a tactical/situaitonal problem..which is really quite illogical when you look at it for what it really is.

This is why in the Army we always stress from day one when teaching Combatives...

"The winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

Imho good Aiki is applied in a similar way to the archer - at a distance and in conditions where the tactics of the attacker are compromised well in advance of any direct physical contact.

Just a thought.
LC

Aiki is done at any distance and tactical range. And is equally effective in close-in work or in stand-off striking. There are any number of people here who have either seen or felt me use it in full speed sparring with any number of teachers in various arts from Judo to ICMA, AIiido, DR to Karate and MMA guys as well. Just ask.

Good Aiki...do is not "good" Aikido™.
The shame of it all is seeing the former being judged by the movement of teachers in the latter. They have little to no understanding of aiki so their entire expression of the art is forever compromised.

How does aikido work? WIth aiki.
So far (in my experience) I haven't met anyone in Aikido™ who really knows aiki to any significant degree- so I understand the confusion.
There are groups of people working to change all of that. Aikido™ teachers are currently undertaking the transformative process to change their bodies and thus create aiki. In time, this will turn Aikido™on its head, and these teachers will begin to fix the art so that it becomes the way of aiki once again.
Cheers
Dan

I think what when we look at it this way we are combining two things: The physical and the conceptual.

Weapons to me are tangible and physical, not conceptual. Semantics? maybe some...

So...Aikido as a weapon does not work for me as Aikido is conceptual application.

A weapon is tangible, hand, knife, stick, gun....

those weapons as Chris points out have properties and characteristics that give them various tactical advantages/disadvantages.

Where does Aikido come into play as conceptual?

Well it is the strategy or tactics of employing that weapon system (or could be).

I think though that this is also not correct because typically, I say TYPICALLY, aikido is NOT generally taught with such a narrow focus such as tactical employment of a weapon system, but as an overall DO or WAY that is more concerned with over-arching principles rather than tactical employment of a weapon system.

Sure, there are linkages, but what a VERY ineffcient way to learn how to use a weapon system!

I really have found it useful and important to distingush between the two methods of approach...that is...tactics vice "WAY" "DO" or "ART".

Sure, we can take an intergrated approach to study and it is helpful to understand etiology. Heck Ellis just wrote a very wonderful book on this process!

However, I think a big part of the problem is alot of folks confuse the processes, methodolgies and it becomes convoluted for them and then they experience dissonance when their buddy at work says "show me how this works"...and then we are trying to apply a limited, conceptual solution to a tactical/situaitonal problem..which is really quite illogical when you look at it for what it really is.

This is why in the Army we always stress from day one when teaching Combatives...

"The winner of a hand to hand fight is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a gun."

I understand your point here....My premise is simple and is echoed by several Aikido Shihan...Practicing Aikido "conceptual solutions" apart from it's employment as a "weapons system" means you can no longer consider it a Martial Art/ Budo and is basically....pointless...

In other (so many) words You cannot have "concepts" without first having a "weapon" to employ.As an aside, Perhaps this is why Shoji Nishio places such a huge emphasis on weapons...All of our Tai-Jitsu is based on the Sword.

In fact my opinion is the more folks continue to try separate Aikido's concepts from it's "weapons" the more Aikido will continue to diminish as a valid "Do" or "Way."

All the Gendai Arts are basically structured along the same "concepts" so I ask the dear reader...what is next? Karate without a punch? Judo without a throw?

Now let me be clear that is not to say that if one chooses to practice Aikido from just a conceptual point of view They will gain nothing from it. It depends on what your goals are with it or 'how you want it to work for you". This may seem like a contradiction to my earlier statement about it being pointless but people like Kevin (and I would like to think me in a certain sense LOL) are warriors who are striving to serve and protect something greater than just themselves...and have a great need to be familiar and well versed in every aspect of the art of "defense".

Which of course should be the topic of another Thread "Who do you serve with your practice?"

I think what is important is understanding the realitive value and place of what you are studying and what it is designed to do and keeping it in perspective that is important.

Then understanding the linkages in the teaching/learning chain.

Being a Ranger you understand training methodology.

If you are going to learn CQB live fire, that is shooting and moving through houses with people and live bullets you have to break this down into various subsets/task.

First you teach basic marksmanship...which starts out with weapons familarization, with dry fires, drills moving as a team...then you build up....I will spare everyone all the details.

Alot of this is conceptual at first as you begin to train it and build a base.

However, the average martial artist learns the equivilant of "Dry Fire" and then his buddies ask him to show him how this works in a "CQB Live fire". Holy cow, what a jump in the training gap!

Remember the "band of excellence" William?

Once I began to understand how that applies to martial arts and training progression/sustainment things it made alot of sense!

Wow! However, what I observe in much of Martial arts is that we get stuck in the conceptual stage, or we simply want to stay there and then begin to "loop" without breaking out of it...practicing for the sake of practicing. So in essence, we become "masters of the Dry firing" yet gain very little experience beyond that, so we experience dissonance when we attempt to transfer that outside our training environment.

And at the same time ju jitsu and bjj have answers to a striking opponent - close distance, clinch, throw and submit.

Irimi nage? Tenchi nage? Aiki otoshi? Ganseki otoshi? Koshi nage?
Kubi nage? Kata gatame? All their henka. Then all the techniques that are floating around Aikido but which have no name. Most of the grabbing attacks in Aikido pretty much put an end to a striker.

Although admittedly we may not have the submission skills, but then it was much easier to use a dagger back in the day.

Good Post William.
Wow! However, what I observe in much of Martial arts is that we get stuck in the conceptual stage, or we simply want to stay there and then begin to "loop" without breaking out of it...practicing for the sake of practicing. So in essence, we become "masters of the Dry firing" yet gain very little experience beyond that, so we experience dissonance when we attempt to transfer that outside our training environment.

Amen Kevin...And for most this sums up the totality of their experience. I don't think if a person spends a lifetime going to the Dojo a few times a week and to seminars that they have wasted their time. Their goal was not to practice to use Aikido in 'real world situations."

In terms of a metaphor Most police officers (even tactical officers aka SWAT officers) never fire their weapons during their law enforcement careers. Yet they spend beaucoup time "dry-firing" while the tactical officers spend allot of time training for different real world scenarios. Further down the scale I don't know of one street level officer who has not been in a physical altercation. LOL Their life often depends upon prevailing in these encounters and so their 'hand to hand" training reflects this.

I often do straw polls with my new students to see what their goals are and one of the questions I ask them if is they expect that what they will learn 'here" will protect them "out there." Not surprisingly most say yes...So I tell them that they get out of Aikido what they put into it (Again How does Aikido work? It depends on You. ) and if their goal is to learn how to physically protect themselves well then I better see them giving it their all during practice. But if a person is there to learn something new and seek to understand Aikido well...That's ok too. Just don't screw around on the mat. Be a good student and help the others with their goals.

As we say in another world I am a part of..."It works if you work it."

Thus Sword Cutting and Kata everyday for this Jose even though I would never expect to be cutting someone in half anytime soon.

The other thing about Aikido is that it is Jujutsu; its a modification of Daito Ryu which is pretty much par for the course as far as koryu jujutsu goes.
If you want to know how Aikido works a good starting point is probably with the parent arts of Aikido.

The other thing about Aikido is that it is Jujutsu; its a modification of Daito Ryu which is pretty much par for the course as far as koryu jujutsu goes.
If you want to know how Aikido works a good starting point is probably with the parent arts of Aikido.

Daito ryu jujutsu is not "part for the course of Koryu jujutsu." I don't know a single person in Koryu who thinks so.
And the reason for its divergence has been spelled out here.http://www.ellisamdur.com/buy.html.
It's a very good book on many of the current hot button topics in Aikido.
Cheers
Dan

Daito ryu jujutsu is not "part for the course of Koryu jujutsu." I don't know a single person in Koryu who thinks so.
And the reason for its divergence has been spelled out here.http://www.ellisamdur.com/buy.html.
It's a very good book on many of the current hot button topics in Aikido.
Cheers
Dan

Serge Mol seems to think so but I defer to you and stand corrected. Thank you.

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

Wow, this is wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to start...

How does Aikido work? Carefully. That is the issue isn't? To not destroy, harm, or maim your attacker for Aikido.

It is easy to hurt someone who is trying to hurt you. That is our natural reaction as humans. It is such a reaction that we can and some do go to the point of destroying the other person for reason from being insulted to self-protection from some one trying to destroy you.

There are fighting methods which are designed to injure and kill your opponet in as little as a few session. But realistically you need a bit more time than that, say a year, to get enough experience under your belt to be effective against most people. Not more then a year if you work hard at it. But if that is too long of a time to learn, you can buy a gun, learn in a few days how to kill or maim someone. But Aikido isn't one of those fighting methods, and for some reason that is missed on some people.

Aikido has a different angle simply not to destroy or injure the person trying to do harm to you. This takes a very long time, years to be generally effective against most people, or it takes several months. Depending on who is attacking you, how they are doing it, and the intensity of the attack. But, generally Aikido takes a long time. It isn't an easy thing to do to control your attacker without harming them.

With that said, there is one issue I do have in these modern times, and that is when O'Sensei was formulating his philosophy he didn't take in consideration ( how could have he) fighting people on power drugs and steroids. In some cases an Aikidoka may have to injure.

So it works like this, you have to spend a long time to do something very difficult, but amazing; to control a person completely, mind and body, without harming them. You have to control your skill, control your mind, and body to counter something that is a natural instinct or reaction to hurt back. You have to have excellent control of your technique that includes, true internal power of mind and body to have great sensitivity and control of the other person and yourself to stop their attack. Something that is developed, and are difficult goals, which is practice over a long period of time.

Unlike other martial arts mentioned, Aikido doesn't exclude women. Because Aikido doesn't require brute strength and force to work, it works in favor of women over a stronger person. But, here again that is something that takes time, and practice to get that skill. It isn’t like say MMA where most women against another male using MMA would not have a chance. Not using strength and force again works against our immediate nature of when being attacked to use muscle strength and force to fight back. In this case, if a person is strong and bigger that you, you are at a disadvantage. Not so with Aikido. But learning that skill also does takes time and practice.

Now Aikido is practiced as an art. That is important also to keep in mind. Where as other fighting methods are not. In many Aikido dojos the focus is on perfection of a skill as in any art, and not on using Aikido in the street. Though there are Aikido dojos that focus and practice Aikido as a martial means for applying Aikido on the street, or in countries that suffer from war and stuff where Aikido is needed against the daily threat of attacks intended to kill.

So, as you can see that is how Aikido works, you have to understand what you are getting into, what your willing to put into it, and what you want out of it.

Erik, let's say - it is your point of view. As I said above, aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. It is obvious that O'Sensei built his art based on his own abilities. We know from certain sources that his dodging skill was marvelous. So, it is my explanation. What is yours? And Chris - just think, and let me know "why this is wrong on so many levels". I am ready to discuss it.

Regardless what you have read above let me give you my own point of view in this matter. Aikido is a Martial Art, meaning, it is an art of killing people. Most of aikidokas do not realize it, or they do not want to admit it.

Aikido we indebted to two great men. The first one was Jigoro Kano, a father of judo, and the second one - Morihei Ueshiba, a creator of aikido.

Jigoro Kano proved that it is possible to practice very dangerous techniques in a safe way. You can see what I mean by "dangerous" just by looking at judo techniques such as: seoi-nage, o-soto-gari, kata-guruma etc. All of them are throws directly onto the head. Young Jigoro Kano (22 years old) realized that it is possible to practice these deadly techniques without hurting a partner. By grabbing his arm (to the end) during throwing, his head is always protected and his body lands safely on the back.

Morihei Ueshiba, an already experienced Martial Artist (40 years old) has got an idea based on judo development. He created a new weapon - an empty handed warrior. Like a gun, able to kill in a blink of an eye. He selected from antique fighting arts (like ju-jitsu, daito-ryu, etc.) only deadly techniques, in a sense above - throws directly on the head. He never considered his art as a fighting or self-defense art. For example, some of aikido techniques are finished by sliding the partner on his belly. The reason is obvious - the goal is to kill, but the practice must be safe.

As we know, a perfect throw in a judo match is very rear. It is caused by sport's rules. Both competitors are forced to grab each other. It creates an opportunity to resist and mostly strength decides about the result. In aikido there are no rules, and to avoid the same problem, aikido is based on dodging. There is no difference how many aggressors faces an aikidoka if he is able to dodge every attack. All the techniques let him kill an opponent in a blink of an eye.

I don't know that we owe much to Kano and I don't think Ueshiba created an empty hand system, far from it in fact.

Aikido is based on dodging. I've come to see Aikido as, loosely speaking, two groups of teachings (I'm not going to use the word "technique" if I can avoid it). The first group such as shiho nage and kote gaeshi and ikkyo are defences against weapon attacks and grabs, they are defensive in nature. The second group includes irimi nage, tenchi nage, things which can be done by entering in and seizing an opponent.
The second group relies on evasive movement to get into a clinch despite an attack and so yes there is dodging but the point of dodging in Aikido is never a complete response it is always a set up to something else.

As for deadliness; in my experience if you do Aikido full power and full speed on someone that isn't familiar with Aikido you're going to injure them quite badly. Bare miniumum you're going to break or dislocate something, with throws the back of the head is usually the first part of your opponents body to touch the ground.
Since it's reasonably common for people to die after being knocked down simply because they bashed their head off the pavement I can imagine that slamming their head into the pavement will also probably kill them.

And the thing about Judo artifically creating resistance and then patting itself on the back for over coming it I've been saying for maybe a year now. Randori is as much about teaching a student how to resist as it is about teaching how to deal with resistance, so it ends up cancelling itself out and in my experience it only really teaches something of value if your opponent resists in the "correct" fashion. I remember seeing Judo instructor warning an Aikidoka about standing in kamae because his lead leg would get swept "like this" and attempted to demonstrate and the Aikidoka didn't budge one bit. I've also seen Judoka yanking and pulling and getting really quite frustrated as their drag some poor Aikidoka all over the mat, without breaking the Aikidoka's posture.
The best one I've seen is when they do a dropping ippon seoi nage and they expect resistance, but the Aikidoka just goes with it. So the pair end up in this odd situation where the Judoka is kneeling on the floor infront of this very slightly bent over but still standing Aikidoka. Or they go for a normal ippon seoi nage and just before the moment of kuzushi the Aikidoka steps around in front of the Judoka.
I had one judoka literally say to me mid-randori, "Why can't I throw you" and the only answer I had was "Because I'm not resisting you." If you don't give them a stiff, straining, rigid body they really can't do much, Aikidoka are unique in that we can be off posture and on balance. The best form of resistance is to keep your backside underneath you, if the judoka pulls the top bit down, you push the bottom bit under it and if they push the top of your body back then you move the bottom half back with it, so that you're constantly undoing their kuzushi. Judoka are always too busy straining and fighting and struggling to just relax and go with things.

The beauty of Aikido is that by the time you actually physically come into contact with your opponent you've got so much momentum that unless the opponent makes a blending movement of some kind the sheer force of impact is going to take their balance. They have no chance to recover, no chance to resist and by the time they've realised they're off balance they're on the ground. If they're lucky the Aikidoka decides not to put the boot in, if not they end up in the fetal position in a puddle of blood with half their teeth missing.

Erik, let's say - it is your point of view. As I said above, aikido without dodging doesn't make any sense. It is obvious that O'Sensei built his art based on his own abilities. We know from certain sources that his dodging skill was marvelous.

I know what you are referring to, and I know why you think that it was dodging -- but I reiterate --

IT.
WAS.
NOT.
DODGING.

It is how you disrupt a push or a pull, or a strike, -- without pushing, pulling, or striking back -- all of which are merely extensions of momentum into or toward your structure -- without countering it or evading it -- the last thing in the world you want to do is evade that gift.

The correct term for engaging this extension of momentum in aikido is "shear." Of course, the hard part is you have to be disposed to feel and follow where it goes, as well as propagating it.